Joseph Lieberman on Health Care

Democratic Jr Senator (CT), ran for V.P. with Gore, ran for president 2004

Centrist leadership can get more covered by health insurance

Q: What do you make of health care?

A: [We should have a program which]: One, promises when you're born a child in America, you get a membership card in MediKids, covers your insurance. Two, if you lose your job, you will not lose your health
insurance. Three, underemployed, self-employed, small business, you can buy into this plan, it'll cost you a lot less, and, incidentally, you'll get drug benefits with it. That's the kind of centrist leadership that produces results.

Source: Democratic 2004 primary Debate in Greenville SC
Jan 29, 2004

Universal benefit to all seniors-no $12B for HMOs

Q: How, if at all, would you change the new prescription drug benefit for the elderly?

A: We need to deliver a drug benefit -- but we need to do it right, by providing a universal benefit to all seniors.
We should allow real importation of prescription drugs; eliminate premium support demonstration projects; allow Medicare to use its purchasing power to achieve savings in the cost of prescription drugs; and eliminate the $12 billion slush fund for HMOs.

Source: Associated Press policy Q&A, "Medicare"
Jan 25, 2004

National health insurance pool-free for poor and children

Q: How would your health plan improve insurance coverage for the new generation?

LIEBERMAN: There is a morally scandalous fact-that that 43 million Americans don't have health insurance, 2 million more than when George Bush became president.
I'm proposing to create a national health insurance pool like the one that members of Congress get our insurance from. If you don't have insurance now, you'll be able to get it, probably free, if you're among the low-income working poor.
If you're a child, you will be covered by insurance at birth. If you are fired from your work or lose your job, you will not lose your health insurance. MediKids is part of my program. Every child born in America will become a member of MediKids,
and it will cover them from birth through 25. Why 25? Because young adults have a hard time affording health insurance, and a lot of them think they're not going to get sick, but they do, and we need to cover them.

Pharmaceutical prices are unfair-import drugs from Canada

Q: Would you encourage state governors to re-import drugs from Canada to try to keep drug prices down?

LIEBERMAN: Yes, unfortunately, we should. And I view this is as a kind of Boston Tea Party of the 21st century. I never attack the drug companies
for what they produce. The pharmaceuticals that they produce keep us alive and well. But the pricing is unfair. And it is particularly unfair that Canada slaps price controls on, and our citizens have to pay the full cost of research, marketing,
administration of the drug companies. If we begin to allow the legal importation of drugs from Canada, we can speak with our money to the drug companies to treat us more fairly.

Q: Are you encouraging governors and communities to break the law?

LIEBERMAN: We have to make it legal. I would vote, and I have voted for this in the Senate. I would allow the safe importation of drugs, which means to have some basic standards. But send a message to the drug companies: Treat American consumers fairly.

Allow reimport of drugs with FDA approval & price decontrols

Q: Are you for the reimportation of drugs from Canada?

LIEBERMAN: Yes, I have supported measures to allow for the reimportation of drugs with an FDA approval that it is safe. [But] there's something unfair happening. The American pharmaceutical
industry are asking the American people, and the American people alone, to finance the research that leads to drugs. We've got to ask the Canadians who have price controls, the Europeans who have price controls, to begin to pay part of that cost.

Source: Debate at Pace University in Lower Manhattan
Sep 25, 2003

Rx drug costs whack seniors

The best way to give prescription drugs to people at an affordable cost is to cover prescription drugs under Medicare and to cover the 41 million Americans who don't have health insurance today,
because it's they who get whacked by the cost of prescription drugs, not the people who have health insurance.

Source: Debate at Pace University in Lower Manhattan
Sep 25, 2003

Too large health programs will force tax increases

Q: How would you cover more of the uninsured? And would the Bush tax cuts have to go in order to do it?

LIEBERMAN: You bet parts of the Bush tax cuts would have to go, and they ought to go. But I disagree with Dean and others who would adopt so large
a program that it would force an increase in middle-class taxes. That's not fair. The middle class got the end of the marital tax penalty, child care tax credits and so on. I want to protect those, and we can, with a systematic step-by-step proposal.

Source: Democratic Primary Debate, Albuquerque New Mexico
Sep 4, 2003

Medi-Kids: guaranteed care until age 25

I want to create "Medikids." Every baby born in America will leave the hospital not just with a birth certificate but with a Medikids card that will guarantee them health insurance up until the age of 25. You won't have to go down to the welfare office
to sign up. You won't be mandated if you don't want to buy plans to cover health insurance. As president, I'm going to bring the right priorities: I will make every American currently uninsured eligible for a high-quality, affordable health insurance.

Source: Democratic Primary Debate, Albuquerque New Mexico
Sep 4, 2003

Step by step is the way

This campaign presents our party with a choice about whether we want to go backward to deal with health care or whether we want to go forward with new ideas. We're not going to solve these problems with the kind of big spending Democratic ideas of the
past.

We ought to start where Al Gore and I proposed in 2000: expand the children's health insurance program and let their parents buy in to Medicaid at a cheaper rate then they can get in the private market. Step by step is the way to do it.

Source: Democratic Debate in Columbia SC
May 3, 2003

Return taxes to Clinton-era rates to improve health care

Q: Are you willing to raise taxes to cover everyone?

KUCINICH: We can phase in [an increase] in the payroll tax to 7.7% on all employers and have that be our mainstay of our national health care plan. We have to get the profit out of health care.
And that means get the private insurance companies out of health care. Any plan that fails to do that is not going to deliver the best quality universal health care. I introduced HR676, Medicare for all: guaranteed, single payer, universal health care.
It's time to have health insurance for the American people, not the insurance companies.

Q: The Republicans are going to say there they go again, Democrats are raising taxes again. Is there anyone willing to rule out raising taxes?

LIEBERMAN:
I am not willing to raise taxes to pay for health insurance in [that] way. All I am going to do is put the tax rate back to where it was when Bill Clinton was president, because we did a lot better under Bill Clinton than we are under George Bush.

No more big-spending health plans

LIEBERMAN: If Gephardt's plan were implemented, it would take as much money as the Bush tax cut. And in that sense, it would create the same deficit that the Bush tax cut does. It has no cost containment.
We're not going to solve all of our problems with George Bush's big, irresponsible tax cut, and we're not going to solve them all with this kind of big spending. Congress would not pass the Gephardt plan ever,
therefore no single American will get insurance that doesn't have it now.

GEPHARDT: My plan also stimulates the economy. And the Bush tax plan has not stimulated the economy. This will allow companies to hire new people.
It will put money in people's pockets, because we're going to reduce the cost of their premiums for health care potentially having all that 60% go across to every employee.

Texas slow to register kids in federal health insurance

Texas actually ranks 49th of 50 states in providing health insurance for kids. Governor Bush may say that he has a plan to improve children’s health. But, why hasn’t he done it in Texas? The focus of Lieberman’s remarks, the Children’s Health Insurance
Program, is new. It was created in 1997, providing federal money to the states to cover uninsured children. Texas has been one of the slowest states in signing up children for the program.

Source: Richard P‚rez-Pe¤a, NY Times
Sep 9, 2000

Patient Bill of Rights: access; choice; privacy; appeals

The Gore-Lieberman proposal makes several guarantees, among them that:

Access to hospital emergency room care and specialists if necessary.

Medical decisions are made by doctors, not insurance companies or HMOs.

Doctors can tell patients
about all options, not just the least expensive ones.

Medical records are kept private; no discrimination based on genetic information.

People can appeal a decision to deny coverage made by their health plans and sue their health plans.

Source: Associated Press
Aug 31, 2000

Health insurance for every American child

We see health care through a different set of eyes. We know that health care is one of the most important problems facing families today. We believe that medical decisions should be made by doctors, not bureaucrats. We believe that senior
citizens shouldn’t be stopped from filling a prescription because they can’t afford to pay for it. And Al Gore and I are the only candidates in this race who will extend access to health care coverage to every single child in America.

Source: Speech to the Democrat Convention
Aug 16, 2000

Supports health insurance industry (based in Hartford CT)

Lieberman was part of a bipartisan group that tried last year to break a deadlock between the Clinton administration and Republican senators over how to regulate health plans. The administration maintained that the legislation Lieberman favored would
have been too generous to insurance companies. Consumer groups and labor unions were among those siding with the administration.

Lieberman has also regularly voted for legislation to limit damages that can be assessed in civil lawsuits. Many of
Lieberman’s friends said he had no alternative but to take this position because it was the one favored by the insurance industry. The industry is important to Connecticut’s economy and has generously donated to Lieberman’s campaigns.

But that is not
Lieberman’s explanation for his stand. He said the American system of civil law had “gone way off track and become a lottery in which literally a few people do very well but most of the people injured don’t really get adequately compensated.”

Source: David E. Rosenbaum, NY Times, p. A19
Aug 8, 2000

Limited lawsuits against HMOs and automakers

On HMO regulation, he co-sponsored a compromise that omits Medical Savings Accounts and would allow lawsuits against HMOs, but limit them to economic recovery and attorneys’ fees only. He is a sponsor of Auto
Choice reform, which would allow car owners to opt out of pain and suffering damages and get much cheaper insurance premiums.

Joseph Lieberman on Voting Record

Voted to cut Medicare & raise age; now would not

Gore rejected the majority conclusions reached last year by a bipartisan commission on Medicare, saying he would not support raising the Medicare eligibility age to 67 from 65, forcing the elderly into managed care, or raising premiums and co-payments.

One of those who has supported such measures in the past is Lieberman, who sided with Republicans in several balanced-budget votes in 1997 to raise the eligibility age and to impose increases in premiums and fees for some Medicare recipients. “It is
important to put these votes in context,“ said Lieberman’s spokesman. ”At the time projections were that the system would be bankrupt in four or five years. Senator Lieberman and a lot of other people saw it as necessary to salvage the program.“

Lieberman voted last year against the recommendations of the bipartisan commission to further restrict eligibility and allow some additional charges for recipients. ”His recent record shows he’s very much in synch with the vice president,“ he said.

Source: Kevin Sack & James Dao, NY Times
Aug 31, 2000

Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium.

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. ENSIGN: This amendment is to means test Medicare Part D the same way we means test Medicare Part B. An individual senior making over $82,000 a year, or a senior couple making over $164,000, would be expected to pay a little over $10 a month extra. That is all we are doing. This amendment saves a couple billion dollars over the next 5 years. It is very reasonable. There is nothing else in this budget that does anything on entitlement reform, and we all know entitlements are heading for a train wreck in this country. We ought to at least do this little bit for our children for deficit reduction.
OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. BAUCUS: The problem with this amendment is exactly what the sponsor said: It is exactly like Part B. Medicare Part B is a premium that is paid with respect to doctors' examinations and Medicare reimbursement. Part D is the drug benefit. Part D premiums vary significantly nationwide according to geography and according to the plans offered. It is nothing like Part B.

Second, any change in Part D is required to be in any Medicare bill if it comes up. We may want to make other Medicare changes. We don't want to be restricted to means testing.

Third, this should be considered broad health care reform, at least Medicare reform, and not be isolated in this case. LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Amendment rejected, 42-56

Voted NO on allowing tribal Indians to opt out of federal healthcare.

CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY:TRIBAL MEMBER CHOICE PROGRAM: Members of federally-recognized Indian Tribes shall be provided the opportunity to voluntarily enroll, with a risk-adjusted subsidy for the purchase of qualified health insurance in order to--

SUPPORTER'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING YES:Sen. COBURN: The underlying legislation, S.1200, does not fix the underlying problems with tribal healthcare. It does not fix rationing. It does not fix waiting lines. It does not fix the inferior quality that is being applied to a lot of Native Americans and Alaskans in this country. It does not fix
any of those problems. In fact, it authorizes more services without making sure the money is there to follow it.

Those who say a failure to reauthorize the Indian Health Care Improvement Act is a violation of our trust obligations are correct. However, I believe simply reauthorizing this system with minor modifications is an even greater violation of that commitment.

OPPONENT'S ARGUMENT FOR VOTING NO:Sen. DORGAN: It is not more money necessarily that is only going to solve the problem. But I guarantee you that less money will not solve the problem. If you add another program for other Indians who can go somewhere else and be able to present a card, they have now taken money out of the system and purchased their own insurance--then those who live on the reservation with the current Indian Health Service clinic there has less money. How does that work to help the folks who are stranded with no competition?

Voted YES on adding 2 to 4 million children to SCHIP eligibility.

Allows State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP), that require state legislation to meet additional requirements imposed by this Act, additional time to make required plan changes. Pres. Bush vetoed this bill on Dec. 12, 2007, as well as a version (HR976) from Feb. 2007.

Proponents support voting YES because:

Rep. DINGELL: This is not a perfect bill, but it is an excellent bipartisan compromise. The bill provides health coverage for 3.9 million children who are eligible, yet remain uninsured. It meets the concerns expressed in the President's veto message [from HR976]:

It terminates the coverage of childless adults.

It targets bonus payments only to States that increase enrollments of the poorest uninsured children, and it prohibits States from covering families with incomes above $51,000.

It contains adequate enforcement to ensure that only US citizens are covered.

Opponents recommend voting NO because:

Rep. DEAL: This bill
[fails to] fix the previous legislation that has been vetoed:

On illegal immigration: Would the verification system prevent an illegal alien from fraudulently using another person's name to obtain SCHIP benefits? No.

On adults in SCHIP: Up to 10% of the enrollees in SCHIP will be adults, not children, in the next 5 years, and money for poor children shouldn't go to cover adults.

On crowd-out: The CBO still estimates there will be some 2 million people who will lose their private health insurance coverage and become enrolled in a government-run program.

Veto message from President Bush:

Like its predecessor, HR976, this bill does not put poor children first and it moves our country's health care system in the wrong direction. Ultimately, our goal should be to move children who have no health insurance to private coverage--not to move children who already have private health insurance to government coverage. As a result, I cannot sign this legislation.

Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D.

Would require negotiating with pharmaceutical manufacturers the prices that may be charged to prescription drug plan sponsors for covered Medicare part D drugs.

Proponents support voting YES because:

This legislation is an overdue step to improve part D drug benefits. The bipartisan bill is simple and straightforward. It removes the prohibition from negotiating discounts with pharmaceutical manufacturers, and requires the Secretary of Health & Human Services to negotiate. This legislation will deliver lower premiums to the seniors, lower prices at the pharmacy and savings for all taxpayers.

It is equally important to understand that this legislation does not do certain things. HR4 does not preclude private plans from getting additional discounts on medicines they offer seniors and people with disabilities. HR4 does not establish a national formulary. HR4 does not require price controls. HR4 does not hamstring research and development by pharmaceutical houses.
HR4 does not require using the Department of Veterans Affairs' price schedule.

Opponents support voting NO because:

Does ideological purity trump sound public policy? It shouldn't, but, unfortunately, it appears that ideology would profoundly change the Medicare part D prescription drug program, a program that is working well, a program that has arrived on time and under budget. The changes are not being proposed because of any weakness or defect in the program, but because of ideological opposition to market-based prices. Since the inception of the part D program, America's seniors have had access to greater coverage at a lower cost than at any time under Medicare.

Under the guise of negotiation, this bill proposes to enact draconian price controls on pharmaceutical products. Competition has brought significant cost savings to the program. The current system trusts the marketplace, with some guidance, to be the most efficient arbiter of distribution.
Status: Cloture rejected Cloture vote rejected, 55-42 (3/5ths required)

Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000.

A "cloture motion" cuts off debate. Voting YEA indicates support for the bill as written, in this case to cap medical liability lawsuits. Voting NAY indicates opposition to the bill or a desire to amend it. This bill would "provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system." It would limit medical lawsuit noneconomic damages to $250,000 from the health care provider, and no more than $500,000 from multiple health care institutions.

Proponents of the motion recommend voting YEA because:

Many doctors have had to either stop practicing medicine due to increased insurance premiums.

Patients are affected as well--due to rising malpractice rates, more and more patients are not able to find the medical specialists they need.

The cost of medical malpractice insurance premiums are having wide-ranging effects. It is a national problem, and it is time for a national solution.

I am pleased that
S. 22 extends liability protections to all health care providers and institutions.

These bills are a commonsense solution to a serious problem, and it is time for us to vote up or down on this legislation.

Opponents of the motion recommend voting NAY because:

We have virtually no evidence that caps on economic damages will actually lower insurance rates. And in my view, these caps are not fair to victims.

If we want to reduce malpractice insurance premiums we must address these problems as well as looking closely at the business practices of the insurance companies. What we shouldn't do is limit the recovery of victims of horrible injury to an arbitrarily low sum.

This is obviously a complicated issue. This is the kind of issue that needs to be explored in depth in our committees so that a consensus can emerge. So I will vote no on cloture, and I hope that these bills will go through committees before we begin floor consideration of this important topic.

Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D.

To provide for necessary beneficiary protections in order to ensure access to coverage under the Medicare part D prescription drug program. Voting YES would extend the 6-month enrollment period for the Prescription Drug Benefit Program to the entire year of 2006 and allows beneficiaries to change plans once in that year, without penalty, after enrollment. Also would fully reimburse pharmacies, states and individuals for cost in 2006 for covered Medicare Part D drugs.

Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics.

Vote on an amendment that removes an increase in the Medicaid deduction rebate for generic drugs from 11% to 17%. The effect of the amendment, according to its sponsor, is as follows: "This bill eliminates the ability of generic drugs to be sold using Medicaid. Over half the prescription drugs used in Medicaid are generic. Because we have raised the fees so dramatically on what a generic drug company must pay a pharmacy to handle the drug, pharmacies are not going to use the generic. In the long run, that will cost the Medicaid Program billions of dollars. My amendment corrects that situation." A Senator opposing the amendment said: "This bill has in it already very significant incentives for generic utilization through the way we reimburse generics. Brand drugs account for 67% of Medicaid prescriptions, but they also account for 81% of the Medicaid rebates. This is reasonable policy for us, then, to create parity between brand and generic rebates. This amendment would upset that parity."

Vote to adopt an amendment that would allow federal government negotiations with prescription drug manufactures for the best possible prescription drug prices. Amendment details: To ensure that any savings associated with legislation that provides the Secretary of Health and Human Services with the authority to participate in the negotiation of contracts with manufacturers of covered part D drugs to achieve the best possible prices for such drugs under Medicare Part D of the Social Security Act, that requires the Secretary to negotiate contracts with manufacturers of such drugs for each fallback prescription drug plan, and that requires the Secretary to participate in the negotiation for a contract for any such drug upon the request of a prescription drug plan or an MA-PD plan, is reserved for reducing expenditures under such part.

Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada.

S. 812, as amended; Greater Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals Act of 2002. Vote to pass a bill that would permit a single 30-month stay against Food and Drug Administration approval of a generic drug patent when a brand-name company's patent is challenged. The secretary of Health and Human Services would be authorized to announce regulations allowing pharmacists and wholesalers to import prescription drugs from Canada into the United States. Canadian pharmacies and wholesalers that provide drugs for importation would be required to register with Health and Human Services. Individuals would be allowed to import prescription drugs from Canada. The medication would have to be for an individual use and a supply of less than 90-days.

Vote to provide federal protections, such as access to specialty and emergency room care, and allow patients to sue health insurers in state and federal courts. Economic damages would not be capped, and punitive damages would be capped at $5 million.

Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit.

Vote to pass an amendment that would make up to $300 billion available for a Medicare prescription drug benefit for 2002 through 2011. The money would come from the budget's contingency fund. The amendment would also require a Medicare overhaul.

Voted YES on including prescription drugs under Medicare.

Vote to establish a prescription drug benefit program through the Medicare health insurance program. Among other provisions, Medicare would contribute at least 50% of the cost of prescription drugs and beneficiaries would pay a $250 deductible

Voted NO on limiting self-employment health deduction.

The Santorum (R-PA) amdt would effectively kill the Kennedy Amdt (D-MA) which would have allowed self-employed individuals to fully deduct the cost of their health insurance on their federal taxes.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)53; N)47

Establish "report cards" on HMO quality of care.

Lieberman signed the manifesto, "A New Agenda for the New Decade":

Promote Universal Access and Quality in Health Care That more than 40 million Americans lack health insurance is one of our society’s most glaring inequities. Lack of insurance jeopardizes the health of disadvantaged Americans and also imposes high costs on everyone else when the uninsured lack preventive care and get treatment from emergency rooms. Washington provides a tax subsidy for insurance for Americans who get coverage from their employers but offers nothing to workers who don’t have job-based coverage.

Markets alone cannot assure universal access to health coverage. Government should enable all low-income families to buy health insurance. Individuals must take responsibility for insuring themselves and their families whether or not they qualify for public assistance.

Finally, to help promote higher quality in health care for all Americans, we need reliable information on the quality of health care delivered by health plans and providers; a “patient’s bill of rights” that ensures access to medically necessary care; and a system in which private health plans compete on the basis of quality as well as cost.

Goals for 2010

Reduce the number of uninsured Americans by two-thirds through tax credits, purchasing pools, and other means.

Create a system of reliable “report cards” on the quality of care delivered by health plans and providers.

Amends the Internal Revenue Code to provide for the exclusion from gross income of amounts received under the National Nursing Service Corps Scholarship Program.

Amends the Public Health Service Act to: (1) develop and issue public service announcements that advertise and promote the nursing profession, highlight the advantages and rewards of nursing, and encourage individuals from diverse communities and backgrounds to enter the nursing profession; and (2) award grants to designated eligible educational entities in order to increase the number of nurses.

Establishes a National Nurse Service Corps Scholarship program that provides scholarships to individuals seeking nursing education in exchange for service by such individuals in areas with nursing shortages. Authorizes appropriations.

Rated 100% by APHA, indicating a pro-public health record.

Lieberman scores 100% by APHA on health issues

The American Public Health Association (APHA) is the oldest and largest organization of public health professionals in the world, representing more than 50,000 members from over 50 occupations of public health. APHA is concerned with a broad set of issues affecting personal and environmental health, including federal and state funding for health programs, pollution control, programs and policies related to chronic and infectious diseases, a smoke-free society, and professional education in public health.

The following ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.

Provide mental health services for older Americans.

OFFICIAL CONGRESSIONAL SUMMARY: A bill to provide for mental health screening and treatment services, and to provide for integration of mental health services and mental health treatment outreach teams.

SPONSOR'S INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Sen. CLINTON: This bill is an effort to improve the accessibility and quality of mental health services for our rapidly growing population of older Americans. As we look forward to increased longevity, we must also acknowledge the challenges that we face related to the quality of life as we age. Chief among these are mental and behavioral health concerns.

It is estimated that nearly 20% of Americans age 55 or older experience a mental disorder. It is anticipated that the number of seniors with mental health problems will increase from 4 million in 1970 to 15 million in 2030. Mental disorders do not have to be a part of the aging process because we have effective treatments for these conditions. But in far too many
instances our seniors go undiagnosed and untreated because of the current divide in our country between health care and mental health care.

That is why I am reintroducing the Positive Aging Act. This legislation would strengthen the delivery of mental health services to older Americans. Specifically, the Positive Aging Act would fund grants to states to provide screening and treatment for mental health disorders in seniors. It would also fund demonstration projects to provide these screening and treatment services to older adults residing in rural areas and in naturally occurring retirement communities, NORC's.

I believe that we owe it to older adults in this country to do all that we can to ensure that high quality mental health care is both available and accessible. This legislation takes an important step in that direction.

LEGISLATIVE OUTCOME:Referred to Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; never came to a vote.

Preserve access to Medicaid & SCHIP during economic downturn.

A bill to preserve access to Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program during an economic downturn.

Economic Recovery in Health Care Act of 2008 - Prohibits finalizing, implementing, enforcing, or otherwise taking any action, prior to April 1, 2009, on any changes to Medicaid programs or State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

Amends the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act of 2007 to extend through April 1, 2009, the moratorium relating to the cost limit for providers.

Amends the Medicare, Medicaid, and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 to extend through April 1, 2009, the moratorium relating to rehabilitation services, school-based administration, and school-based transportation.

Provides for state fiscal relief through a temporary increase of Medicaid federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP).